1599 
.35K55 





Glass E_5-Sl2l 



Book . ^'S M^ .S 



GEISTEVA. A.^iV^A.RI3. 



FIVE MINUTES 

In Reply to Argument for Insurance Companies, before H. R. 
Judiciary Committee. 

By E. W. Metcalf. 



Hon. Mr, Evarts quoted from the President's message, 
as follows : 

" I therefore recommend to Congress to authorize the 
appointment of a Commission, to take proof of the amount 
and the ownership of these several claims, * * and that 
authority be given for the settlement of these claims by the 
United States, so that the Government shall have the owner- 
ship of the private claims, as well as the responsible control 
of all the demands against Great Britain. "^ 

Then, speaking in behalf of Insurance Companies, Mr. 
Evarts claimed that the President thus acknowledged an 
obligation of the Government to its citizens, the nature or 
measure of which subsequent negotiations and treaties have 
not changed, except that it is strengthened by the fact that 
indemnity in money has been received by the Government 
for England's fault. 

This suggests the inquiry — who would have received 
indemnity in the settlement, had the course so recommended 
by the President been adopted? 



.S5Mbi) 



First 

No distinction could or would have been made between 
losses caused by the Georgia and the Alabama, or between 
the Shenandoah before and after Australia, for no distinction 
existed in their histor}', in the wrongfulness of their acts, or 
in the losses which they occasioned. The distinctions after- 
ward made by the Tribunal related to questions of interna- 
tional obligation, and are of vast prospective importance 
and value to this nation, but did not touch the question of 
obligation to our own citizens.- 

Second. 

Losses occasioned by all Confederate cruisers outside of 
Confederate waters, would have been paid, for the United 
States had justly demanded of Great Britain full indemnity 
for the acts of all these cruisers, basing this demand upon 
that act of Great Britain which was, and which our Govern- 
ment had declared to be, (I quote its words,) " precipitate,"*'' 
" unprecedented,"-'^ "unjustifiable," "the cause, and the 
only cause,"^ in which "this evil had its origin,"'' "from 
which all the grievances seem deducible,"^ which " actually 
created,"''' gave '•birth,"''^ to their belligerent power, by 
acknowledging persons as a belligerent power on the ocean 
before they had a single vessel floating upon it."" 

And even after the nation had, for considerations of 
national importance only, " abandoned the claims for compen- 
sation founded upon the Queen's proclamation,"^ and 
basing its claims only on the small resultant remainder of 
the wrong, the United States still insisted that the " obliga- 
tion to make full compensation for the acts of these vessels 
was entailed upon Great Britain, "^ and asked the Tribunal 



at Geneva to make au award in grosa, and in considering its 
amount to take into account the losses of individuals in the 
destruction of their vessels and cargoes by the Sumier,^'^ 
NashviUe,^^ Retribution,^- Tallahassee,^'-^ &c. 

The Government, after having so definitely and com- 
pletely endorsed and insisted upon this obligation to its 
citizens, could not, in a settlement with those citizens, have 
ignored this obligation. 

Third. 

Insurance Companies would not have received a dollar — for 
their claims upon the Government for compensation, where 
property on which they had paid the insurance has been 
lost or destroyed, " have always been dismissed, on the 
ground that they were paid for the risk, and could not ask 
the Government to hold them harmless."^^ 

Fourth. 

The Government, by such settlement, and making full 
indemnity for all the loss to individuals caused by all the 
rebel cruisers, would have paid out millions of dollars less 
than it has since received as indemity from England; for 
all the actual unindemnified loss caused by all those cruisers, 
not included in the rules of international obligation estab- 
lished by the Geneva Tribunal, does not exceed $1,200,000, 
while the Tribunal justly awarded to the ncrifon indemnity 
for all the property destroyed by the cruisers which were 
included in those rules, deducting nothing for the indem- 
nities which individuals had received, which amount to 
about $5,750,000. 

Thus the Government has in its possession money, received 



as indemnity for England's fault, sufficient to pay its citi- 
zens for all their losses directly resulting from that fault, 
and at least $4,500,000 more, which, if its original obliga- 
tion has not been changed by subsequent negotiations, the 
Government is at liberty to disburse to those who suffered 
less directly from England's wrong, but to which Insurance 
Companies can make no claim. 

Have subsequent negotiations changed the obligation ? 
Does the fact that England has indemnified this nation for 
a wrong to itself, which wan no wrong, but a benefit to insurer's, 
create an obligation, ivhkh did not before exist, to hold in- 
surers (who were paid their own price for the risks they 
took) harmless from the consequences of their own volun- 
tary act ? Especially, when the Tribunal which awarded the 
indemity rejected the claim of insurers, and enunciated a 
broad principle which must always exclude them — in these 
words : 

" Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable compensation 
for the damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to 
set aside all double claims for the same losses.''"'^'' 

Has the surrender by our Government /o?- its own benefit 
of the principal foundation for the claims of its citizens, 
and the settlement so advantageous to itself, which cancels 
and bars those claims against England, and transfers the 
obligations to this nation, relieved the Government from its 
obligation, lohich did before exist, to settle with those 
citizens?'^ 

Although the President and Senate alone have exclusive 
jurisdiction over international questions, and the undoubted 
right to surrender for the public benefit any claim of pri- 



vate citizens as against a foreign Power, have they alone 
any legislative authority? 

Would such surrender cancel the claim, or only transfer 
the obligation to this nation ? 

Could the President and Senate alone make or change 
any law touching the obligation of the Government to the 
people ? 

Could they delegate to a tribunal any power which they 
themselves did not possess? 

If not, could the Tribunal at Geneva make any law for 
the distribution of its award which would be binding upon 
the Congress or courts of the United States ? 

Did the Government of the United States, in matters re- 
lating to the Treaty of Washington, act for itself, to protect 
its own dignity, honor, and interests, and establish great 
principles of international law and precedents, which shall 
benefit its people and all peoples for all time ; or, did it act 
simply as an attorney, employed by certain individuals who 
had, or fancied they had, sundry claims against England? 

If the first, its success was complete and glorious, one in 
regard to which every American may rejoice and be proud* 
if the second, only partial and, at best, of slight importance. 

Which view of the case will Congress take in its legisla- 
tion for the distribution of the Geneva Award ? 

If an attorney, it may say to certain of its clients, " Your 
bill is collected ; here is your money ;" and to others, "Your 
bill was not collected ; there is nothing for you." 

The disappointed client may ask: "Why not? Was not 
my loss as real and my claim as just as that of him you 
paid?" 

"Oh yes! and even more so," attorney replies, " but for 



certain reasons of great importance to myself, it was thought 
not best to have judgment issue for such claims as yours." 

If an attorney, a selfish and dishonest one ! Every honor- 
able impulse says no ! Not an attorney, acting for a few 
individuals ; but a great nation, acting for itself and for hu- 
manity. 

I have expressed these views as a business man. I feel 

sure that the business men of the country will endorse 

them, 

E. W. Metcalf, 

Builder of Ship Delphine. 



1. President's Message, Dec. 5, 1870. 

2. Correspondence, &c., Claims vs. Gr^t Britain, vol. 5, pp. 577, 
686 to 591. 

3. Same, vol. 3, pp. 533, 534. 

4. Same, vol. 1, p. 226. 

5. Same, vol. 1, p. 292. 

6. Same, vol. 1, p. 242. 

7. Same, vol. 1, p. 292; vol. 3, p. 533. 

8. Papers Relating to Treaty Washington, vol. 3, pp. 196, 209, 

9. American Case, p. 163. 

10. Same, p. 132. 

11. Same, p. 133. 

12. Same, p. 156. 

13. Same, pp. 164, 165. 

14. Letter from W. B. Washburn. 

15. Papers, &c., vol. 3, p. 223; vol. 2, p, 516, and "Short History 
of Long Negotiations." 

16. Treaty of Washington and Award of the Tribunal. 

17. Award of the Tribunal. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



"I III II ill Hill iij|j|jj|j|jj|j 

013 709 513 




~^Aw 



